(Updated August 15th. 2013, comments are welcome)
Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger to her parents and their seven adult friends. She may be alive.
This basic hypothesis is based on the following:
- The original Polícia Judiciária Files published in Internet. The main file contains approximately 4,700 pages, and there are some 6,500 pages of published appendices and interviews conducted in England ("cartas rogatorias"). I gave the most importance to pages 1 to 1709 of the main files, which referred to the first month (May 3rd. to June 6th. 2007).
- "Madeleine" book by Kate McCann. The case is well known, but if you want to recall the circumstances of the crime, the book "Madeleine" (in English, Spanish or Portuguese) is the best approach.
- My three investigative trips to Praia da Luz. I was in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, Portugal, where Madeleine McCann was abducted in 2007, from March 3rd. to 8th., 2012 (6 days); from October 6th. to 17th., 2012 (12 days); and from March 19th. to 26th., 2013 (8 days). More than 2,600 pictures were taken in these three trips. Almost all of these have been published here.
The main evidence in this case is based on eye witness testimonies (see Appendix A, B and C for the dogs searches, the inconclusive DNA analysis results, and a note on the "Forensic Sciences").
The basic hypothesis has 7 items:
1. Lack of physical evidence: the DNA analysis performed on stains collected after dogs "alerts" by the Forensic Science Service were inconclusive, and theretofore the dogs "alerts" discarded as evidence.
2. Lack of physical evidence: the fingerprints found in Madeleine's room window in apartment 5A were from the child mother, and another not found in the referred window but in 5A, was from an GNR (Guarda Nacional Republicana) officer that went to investigate.
The key 40 minutes: 21:30 to 22:10 hours.
3. At 21:30 the 9 adults were at the table in the Tapas Bar. At approximately 21:35 Matthew and Russell went together to their respective apartments. Russell stayed with his younger daugther, who felt ill, Matthew returned to the Tapas Bar, but previously entered the apartment 5A of McCann, where he saw the twins, but did not see Madeleine's bed, and all seemed to be normal and quiet.
4. May 3rd. 2007: between 21:40 and 21:49 approximately the abductor, a burglar who was an Ocean Club employee or who had received information from an Ocen Club employee (and who had not the intention to abduct a child), took Madeleine without entering the apartment 5A, opening the window from the outside, without damaging it (the glass panes were closed but unlocked). Awakened by the noise and/or light from the opening, Madeleine went to the window thinking it was one of her parents, somewhat somnolent and very tired, and was taken by the burglar who panicked (see videos).
5. May 3rd. 2007: Jane Tanner saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 21:50 hours, in the street, near apartment 5A. The abductor trousers were described as “between beige and gold”. Surely it was white or similar, being the color perceived different due to street sodium lamps. Jane stayed at her apartment 5D and Russell returned to the Tapas Bar.
6. May 3rd. 2007: The Smiths family saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 22:05 hours, in Rua da Escola Primária, a street, which is some 5-7 minutes walking from apartment 5A. The abductor trousers were described as “cream-colored or beige” and “light beige”. Surely it was white or similar, being the color perceived different due to street sodium lamps.
7. May 3rd. 2007: Kate, Madeleine's mother, at approximately 22:05, raised the alarm, the shutter was lifted, one of the window panes was opened, and the curtains was moved. “Someone’s taken her”.
This is my basic hypothesis, and I would like to see it refuted. It may be not true, but it is simple and plausible. What happened in reality may be a modification of this hypothesis, considering the following questions:
- The abductor acted alone or with accomplice(s)?
- Unplanned or planned abduction? There are at least three unidentified suspects (see main PJ files pages 301-303, and 200-210), and there are many vantage points to monitor apartment 5A and OC Tapas Bar reception entrance, mainly from block 6 (see main PJ files pages 3902-3908).
- Had or not the abductor a vehicle near the place of the Smiths sighting?
Note 1: in the videos the first two intents of shifting the shutters are indeed unnecesary.
Note 2: The next third video was produced by Pat Brown in the 5A apartment Madeleine's room window. I did not get permission by the Ocean Club to make the test in the 5A so I used a similar window.
APPENDIX A
The dogs
Martin Grime is the trainer of two dogs: Eddie, an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (ERVD); and Keela, a Crime Scene Investigation dog (CSI dog). The two dogs were carried from UK to Praia da Luz, where they were searching for human remains and blood in some apartments, cars and clothes, in the context of the abduction of Madeleine McCann.
The dogs alerted by barking to possible stains or objects, which then were submitted to the UK Forensic Science Service.
Martin Grime (PJ Original Files Vol.IX, page 2477, August 2007, bolds are mine): "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
That is to say, the trainer of the dogs Eddie and Keela, admitted that alerts from his dogs must "be confirmed with corroborating evidence". The corroborating evidence, which would appear in the DNA analysis from the submitted stains and objects, never appeared.
In sum, the complete process "dogs search - DNA analysis" yielded no corroborating evidence of the alleged Madeleine McCann death (see appendix B).
But I want to go a step further, and ask if is there a scientific basis for the alerts of the dogs Eddie and Keela.
Their trainer writes (PJ Original Files Vol.IX, page 2480, bolds are mine): "The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to identify the exhaust of the scent through fissures in bedrock or watercourses".
Maybe this great alleged skills of the dog made an intelligent member of the Polícia Judiciária, Inspector Paulo Días to ask the following (Relatório de Análise dos primeiros 11 Volumes): "If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times?" (page 13, bolds are mine).
Mr. Grime could answer to this point. In his own words: "What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner" (PJ Original Files Vol.IX, page 2462).
But this introduces a serious methodological problem: the source stain, if exists, could be in a different place that those which the dog alerts.
More difficult would be for Mr. Grime to answer another question by Paulo Días: "On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it [...] Whys didn't he alert it when he sniffs it on the first time?" (Relatório de Análise dos primeiros 11 Volumes, page 13, bolds are mine).
I think dogs could be of help in forensic matters, to locate a human cadaver or biological remains of it. But we must take into account that (a) they are fallible, and (b) we need more scientific studies to prove many of their alleged skills.
Another interesing question from Paulo Días in his report is about the method of training: "The initial training of the [EVRD] dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead [...] could the dog be 'alerting' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction?" (bolds are mine).
At last I want to consider the concept of "death scent". It is not an inmaterial entity, but a mixture of hundreds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). And the problem with this mixture is that its composition changes with many factors, including temperature, moisture, and postmortem day.
How many of this compounds is the dog reacting to? To just one, to a mixture of a few, to all?
In an excellent recent paper (Dekeirsschieter J. et al., 2012) the authors studied the VOCs from a dead pig during 43 days, divided in four stages (Fresh, Bloated, Active decay, and Advanced decay). They found 605 compounds that appear only in one stage plus 225 compounds that appear in two or more stages. They grouped the 830 compounds in 13 chemical families, trying to catch patterns behind this mess. The following graph, taken from the paper with permission, shows the changes of the mixture composition during postmortem time (click on the graph to enlarge).
References
Dekeirsschieter J., Stefanuto P.H., Brasseur C., Haubruge E., Focant J.F., 2012. Enhanced Characterization of the Smell of Death by Comprehensive Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatography-Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (GCxGC-TOFMS). PLoS ONE 7(6): e39005.
I have downloaded the Madeleine case videos of the dogs Eddie and Keela from Internet, but now they seem to be unavailable online.
Dekeirsschieter J., Stefanuto P.H., Brasseur C., Haubruge E., Focant J.F., 2012. Enhanced Characterization of the Smell of Death by Comprehensive Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatography-Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (GCxGC-TOFMS). PLoS ONE 7(6): e39005.
I have downloaded the Madeleine case videos of the dogs Eddie and Keela from Internet, but now they seem to be unavailable online.
APPENDIX B
DNA Analysis
Consider the following five atoms: Carbon or C (represented as a grey ball), Hydrogen or H (white ball), Oxygen or O (red ball), Nitrogen or N (blue ball), and Phosphorus or P (yellow ball). A group of these atoms can form simple molecules, like the following:
Phosphate
Deoxyribose
Adenine or Nucleotide A
Cytosine or Nucleotide C (do not confuse with atom C)
Guanine or Nucleotide G
Thymine or Nucleotide T
Phosphate molecules and Deoxyribose molecules bond together with strong links to form long chains.
Any of the nucleotide molecules (A, C, G, or T) bonds with strong links to deoxyribose molecules.
Adenine and Thymine bond together with weak links. Cytosine and Guanine bond together, also with weak links.
These weak links mantain two Phosphate-Deoxyribose chains together, forming a double chain DNA molecule (click in the images to enlarge):
If we separate the two chains “cutting” by the weak links, we can see an example of the “genetic code” as an ordered sequence of nucleotids A, C, G and T.
The double chain DNA is wrapped as part of chromosomes inside each cell nucleus.
I will consider now the Madeleine McCann DNA profile, who appears in Vol. 11, page 2989 of the main file from the Policía Judiciária investigation.
It is not neccesary to consider all parts of the DNA of a person to get an identification profile. The DNA test performed on Madeleine saliva only considers 20 values taken from 10 locus of different chromosomes (see Table and Note).
What is the meaning of these values? Each of these locus have two portions of DNA code (also known as alleles), inherited one from the mother and the another from the father. These portions from these referred locus have an interesting characteristic: they contains repeat motifs of nucleotids (see table). The sequences of 2 to 10 nucleotides which repeat themselves are known as short tandem repeats (STRs), so the repeats motifs of 4 nucleotides in the 10 loci of the test are also known as STRs. All persons have these portions of DNA in these locus, but the number of repetitions in a given allele of a given locus may vary from person to person.
For example, in Madeleine DNA profile the numbers 11 and 13 in the D16 locus means that one allele has 11 repetitions of nucleotid sequence AGAT, and the another allele has 13 repetitions of the same sequence or STR.
Two samples of DNA have a very great likelihood of belong to the same person when ALL the 22 values coincide.
The second generation multiplex plus (SGM+) test is reliable and requires about 1 nanogram of DNA. The low copy number (LCN) test is less reliable, and it is carry out when the quantity of DNA available is about 0.1 to 0.2 nanograms. In the SGM+ test the DNA is replicated 28 times using the polymerase chain reaction method (PCR). In the LCN test the DNA is replicated 34 times.
Now we can analyze the John Lowe report and his email to Stuart Prior, both of which mainly discuss the DNA test results from stain 286C 2007 LCR 10(2).
The complete DNA of a given person, excluding monozygotic twins, is unique (monozygotic twins have the same profile).
But taking only 10 loci from the DNA, the likelihood of finding a person with coincide with that given person, in all of the locus and in all of the alleles, is about 1 in 1,000,000,000. In other words, with this method we can find about only 3 or 4 more persons in the world with the same profile as the given person.
In his email to Stuart Prior, John Lowe analyses stain 286C 2007 LCR 10(2), that was taken from the car the McCanns rented 23 days after Madeleine abduction.
Lowe wrote: "A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeline has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contnbutors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/conclusion."
So Madeleine 10 loci DNA profile has 19 alleles or components; 19 and not 20 because she has the same allele inherited from her mother TH locus and her father TH locus, in her own TH locus. But most important, Madeleine's 20 (19) alleles were inherited from her parents, so Gerry has 10 of Madeleine's alleles in the corresponding loci of his DNA profile, and Kate has the other 10 of Madeleine's alleles in the corresponding loci of her DNA profile. And of course, McCanns twins, Sean and Amelie, could have some of Madeleine alleles inherited from their parents. I would like to have Gerry, Kate, Sean and Amelie profiles to show this.
The profile taken from the car stain has 37 alleles, and 15 match 15 of Madeleine 19 alleles. But it is impossible for one person having 37 alleles into 10 loci. So the DNA belonged to more than one person, and Lowe, after studying the profiles concluded it was a mixture of 3 to 5 person. And if the car were used by the McCanns then they could have contributed to the stain, and remember that they have together the 20 (19) alleles of Madeleine's profile, i.e. all Madeleine components.
Lowe also wrote: "What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. It's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles."
To understand this I will make a lottery analogy: suppose a lottery which has the following numbers ("alleles") to choose: 1 to 50.
Suppose the winner combination ("profile") is: 4, 7, 12, 23, 38, 46. Many people will have two or three or four of these numbers ("alleles") because these numbers are not unique to any person in particular. But the "combination" of the six numbers may be unique to one person, or maybe to two persons, and no more. Or maybe nobody has this combination. It is only an analogy, but I think it helps.
Lowe and other scientists at Birmingham also have some of Madeleine components or alleles. But not the combination that maybe is unique to her.
That is why Lowe can not answer the question if Madeleine DNA contributed to the stain only with this inconclusive DNA analysis. And that is why he asks the following questions:
"When was the DNA deposited? How was the DNA deposited? What body fluid(s) does the DNA originate from? Was a crime committed?"
In other words, did anybody report to see Madeleine in the Renault Scenic car, alive or dead?
DNA evidence, even including more conclusive tests, are not enough in many cases. We need other records like eyewitnesses testimonies, videos, book logs, and the like.
In the Renault Scenic case we have no DNA evidence, no eyewitness evidence, no any other evidence, that Madeleine was inside the car.
In my opinion, the rest of DNA tests from the UK Forensic Science Service, in the case of Madeleine abduction, are less interesting.
Note: The Amelo locus is treated somewhat different and is used for sex determination. The amelogenin gene is present on both the X and the Y chromosome and the amelogenin test is based on a length polymorphism within the gene itself differentiating the Y-chromosomal from the X-chromosomal copy. “X and X” means female, “X and Y” means male.
Lowe report to PJ (main file pages 2653-2658)
Lowe email to Stuart Prior (main file pages 2617-2619)
On Gerry and Kate DNA profile tests (main file pages 2280-2281)
On Sean and Amelie DNA profile tests (main file pages 2287-2288)
APPENDIX C
"Forensic Sciences"
What it is called "Forensic Sciences" should be called "Forensic Practices". It is a set of different practices most of which has not scientific basis.
For example, there is not doubt about the scientific validity of DNA analysis (but of course these DNA analysis are not infallible for many reasons, and sometimes they fail, although in most of these failed cases is possible to locate the sources of the errors).
However for most of the "Forensic Sciences" there is not enough scientific basis ("Cadaver Dogs" for example). And for other practices there is a lack of scientific basis (it is the case of "Criminal Profiling" or "Offender Profiling").
See the 2009 reaction from the USA National Academic of Sciences (Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States) here.
APPENDIX D
The illumination
Description of the stranger by Jane Tanner and the Smith familiy:
According to Jane Tanner, he appeared to be between 35 and 40 years old, slim, about 1.70 meters tall (according to Kate McCann there is an error in the recording of this data, it would be 1,78 meters. See her book “Madeleine”, page 371). His hair was very dark, thick, short, but long to the neck from behind. He wore a pair of straight breeches kind of tissue-colored linen, between beige and gold. His shoes were black, classic, perhaps with a small heel. Dark coat, anorak type.
According to Martin Smith was a Caucasian man about 34 or 35 years, and from 1.75 to 1.80 meters tall. Normal complexion, thin shooting. Brown short hair. He wore a cream-colored or beige tights, classic cut. Not look like a tourist.
The statement made by Aoife Smith shows that the man would be Caucasian, fair skin, and appeared to be about 30 years old. Normal complexion, 1.70 to 1.75 meters tall. Thick hair, light brown, short to the back, and slightly longer on top. He wore straight trousers, smooth, light beige cotton-type fabric.
According to the testimony of Peter Smith the individual was Caucasian, from 1.75 to 1.80 meters tall, about 35 years old. He had dark skin due to Sun exposure. Normal complexion, in good physical condition. Short hair, brown color.
The drawing was made based on the statement of Jane Tanner.
The strangers trousers were describe like “between beige and gold”, “cream-colored or beige” and “light beige”.
I think his trousers were white.
The Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) lights like those in Praia da Luz streets do no emit in the same frequencies as the Sun or the incandescent lights. The Sun and the incandescent lights emit in all the frequencies of the visible spectrum, being the color we perceive the reflected light frequencies by the reflecting body, ie the frequencies that are not absorbed. What we call “white” in sunlight is the reflection of all frequencies that the “white” body receives. Conversely what we call “black” in sunlight is the absorption of all frequencies that the “black” body receives.
The LPS lights mainly emit in two wavelengths: 589.0 and 589.6 nanometers (the wavelength is the constant speed of light divided by the frequency). So what we call “white” in sunlight or under incendescent lights mainly reflects these two frequencies under LPS street lights.
But “a picture worth a thousand words”.
I took the following pictures at the Tanner and Smiths sightings places at day and night. You can see that the white sunlighted wall at the Smiths sighting change its “color” when illuminated by LPS streetlights at night. The same occurs in the Tanner sighting wall circled in yellow. The light in the building, in the yellow rectangle, is an incandescent-like type which emits almost all the spectrum frequencies, so the wall below it appears with its “original” sunlighted white color. The same occurs with the Baptista Supermarket light, in the center of the photo. The sodium lights in the intesection of Dr. Agostinho da Silva and Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins streets (Jane's sighting) were changed after Madeleine abduction, for similar and more powerful sodium lights. That change does not invalidate this analysis, being a change mainly in brightness and saturation, but not in hue.
APPENDIX E
Jane Tanner sighting time
I think the key 40 minutes in May 3rd. 2007 were from 21:30 to 22:10. The data for Praia da Luz (37º 06' North, 8º 06' West) for that day was Sunset at 20:25 (all local times), end of civil twilight at 20:54, and full (99%) Moon rise at 21:54. Source: US Naval Observatory.
So it was really dark from 21:30 to 22:00.
In all eye witness testimonies exists small errors due to the circumstances of several factors such as attention and perception of the event, storing in memory the perceived facts, emotional state, sometimes the redefinition of the meaning of the perceived facts, discussion with others, recalling of memories, and reporting. Memory is not a camera recorder.
Jane Tanner was in a similar context twice in half an hour: she went from Tapas Bar to Block 5 at 21:15 and at 21:45 that day.
I think she saw Gerry and Jez at 21:15, but she saw the abductor with Madeleine at 21:45.
After the processes of attention, perception, storing in memory, redefinition of the importance of the sighting a posteriori, discussion with her friends, and recalling memories, she mistakenly reports the two situations in a similar context as occurring both at 21:15.
The following is one of the reasons I think Jane Tanner saw the abductor at approximately 21:40, when she was going to apartment 5D form the Tapas Bar.
Madeleine was abducted on May 3rd. 2007 between 21:00 and 22:00.
Jane Tanner made her witness statement on May 4th. 2007 begining at 11:30 (see pages 42 to 51 of the PJ original files).
Russell O'Brien wrote two timelines drafts in between, after talking with his vacation friends and his wife Jane.
First timeline draft (click to enlarge)
Second timeline draft (click to enlarge)
The two timelines drafts show the events beginning at 20:45 and finishing at 22:00, and mention the first walk by Jane to 5D at 21:20 approximately.
The first made timeline draft indicates Matthew Oldfield checking the McCann's twins at 21:35, then Russell returning from 5D to the Tapas Bar, and then Kate McCann leaving the table at 21:55 to check her apartment.
I think the confusion occurred because in the first timeline draft Jane's second walk to 5D was neglected, attributing her sighting of the man with the child to her first walk.
In the second timeline all the time lapse between 21:30 and 22:00 was neglected, focusing on 21:00 to 21:30 (it can be see inside a box that Jane sees a stranger walking and carrying a child at 21:20, copied from the first timeline written).
I think Jane saw one or two of these timelines drafts before going to the Police to make her statement.
Because Jane only knew the meaning of her sighting after Kate raised the alarm at 22:00, the storing in her memory of the man carrying a child was emotionless, and therefore weak. She was only thinking about apartment 5D when she met the stranger.
After redefining the importance of her sighting when she heard Kate's shouts at 22:00, and the stress she suffered almost immediately; after talking with Russell and her friends and discussing the events; and after seeing the timelines drafts where her second walk is missing, she could developed a wrong memory of seeing the man with the child at 21:20 in her first walk, and not at 21:40 in her second one.
Remember that a "false memory" is experienced by the person as vivid and sharp as any other "real memory".
And there is also the Misinformation Effect: "In 1973 psychologist Elizabeth Loftus accepted an assistant professorship at the University of Washington and used the new position to begin a new line of research into how memory works in real-world settings, beginning the empirical study of eyewitness testimony. One of the first studies she conducted was the reconstruction of automobile destruction study, in which she found that the way in which questions were worded altered the memories subjects reported. Loftus’ next step was to investigate whether asking leading questions, or providing misleading information in other forms [timeline drafts? group discussion?], might also affect people’s memory for the original event. To answer this question she developed the misinformation effect paradigm, which demonstrated that the memories of eyewitnesses are altered after being exposed to incorrect information [timeline drafts? group discussion?] about an event and that memory is highly malleable and open to suggestion. The misinformation effect became one of the most influential and widely known effects in psychology, and Loftus’ early work on the effect generated hundreds of follow-up studies examining factors that improve or worsen the accuracy of memories, and to explored the cognitive mechanisms underlying the effect".
And there is also the Misinformation Effect: "In 1973 psychologist Elizabeth Loftus accepted an assistant professorship at the University of Washington and used the new position to begin a new line of research into how memory works in real-world settings, beginning the empirical study of eyewitness testimony. One of the first studies she conducted was the reconstruction of automobile destruction study, in which she found that the way in which questions were worded altered the memories subjects reported. Loftus’ next step was to investigate whether asking leading questions, or providing misleading information in other forms [timeline drafts? group discussion?], might also affect people’s memory for the original event. To answer this question she developed the misinformation effect paradigm, which demonstrated that the memories of eyewitnesses are altered after being exposed to incorrect information [timeline drafts? group discussion?] about an event and that memory is highly malleable and open to suggestion. The misinformation effect became one of the most influential and widely known effects in psychology, and Loftus’ early work on the effect generated hundreds of follow-up studies examining factors that improve or worsen the accuracy of memories, and to explored the cognitive mechanisms underlying the effect".
Jane seeing the abductor at 21:40 solves some (minor) problems in the perceived events:
a) The abductor was not with Gerry McCann inside apartment 5A at the same time.
b) Matthew Oldfield did not see anything wrong when he entered 5A because all was OK at the time.
c) Jane, in her first walk to 5D, and then returning to the Tapas Bar, Matthew and Russell in their checks, and Matthew returning to the bar, could not have seen Madeleine's room window opened, because it was not opened at the time (Jane could not have seen the 5A window opened in her second walk because she was thinking to substitute Russell in 5D as quick as possible. Russell could not have seen the 5A window opened in his return to the bar because he was thinking to reach the bar as quick as possible for his awaiting meal).
d) The abductor went directly from Jane sighting place to the Smiths sighting place, without waiting during a "25 minutes time gap" (and he could not raped and/or killed Madeleine during this 25 minutes, leaving the zone with Madeleine alive).
And there is an alternative scenario: In my opinion, and based on the first testimonies of the 9 adults of the vacation group made on May 4th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 34 to 82), and the first testimony of Jeremy Wilkins made on May 7th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 494 to 505), and the second statements by Gerry, Matt and Jane on May 10th. 2007; and by Russell, Rachel Oldfield and Dianne Webster on May 11th. 2007 (PJ main file pages 891 to 903, 905 to 917, 919 to 931, 934 to 941, 943 to 947 and 949 to 954) it is not possible to conclude if Jane Tanner made her check at 21:15 or not (the only big inconsistency in the group testimonies, in my opinion). Also it is not clear to what extent the discussion of the events by members of the 9 adults group and the two timelines made by Russell O'Brien might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 4th. 2007. And it is not clear also if the group (except for Dianne Webster) discussion before the referred second statements, included in the files as a three pages printout (PJ main file pages 886 to 890) might have implanted false memories before the referred statements of May 10th. and 11th. 2007 .
But it is only a small part of the statements made by the group. A more important thing, the sighting of a man with a child by Jane, is corroborated by the totally independent testimonies of the Smiths.
After Kate, Madeleine's mother, alerted the abduction of her daughter, the two more stressed people in the so called "Tapas 9" group were, obviously, Madeleine's parents. But leaving aside Kate and Gerry, who was the person of the remaining seven who received more stress stimuli that awful night?
She was Jane Tanner. Consider the following.
- She was suffering a mild stress all day because her younger daugther feeling sick. This was shared with Russell.
- After Kate's rising the alarm, Jane was facing a violent crime, and she had to have thought: "she could be one of my daughters". This was shared with Russell, but with Matthew and Rachael aalso, who had a daughter in similar circumstances.
- Most important, Jane had to redefine the meaning of her sighting of a man with a child in arms, the abductor. A shout from her could have been stopped the crime.
- And then, of course, hours of emotional upset, and hard group interactions.
We know the effect of mild plus acute stress on perception, memory storing and recall, and reporting. So, we have to take this the most into account when judging her statements to the Polícia Judiciária.
APPENDIX F
Planned abduction with monitoring of the McCann activities? Who was the stranger? Phone numbers of interest
All plausible hypothesis involved a stranger to the McCanns and their seven friends from the vacation group. This stranger abducted Madeleine. This appendix is based upon the assumptiom that the abduction was planned.
Nobody knows who was this stranger, let me describe here a possible of many scenarios:
The stranger arrived alone to Praia da Luz, in the second half of April 2007, aboard a camping car or similar vehicle, and stayed parked somewhere in the area between the Dolphin restaurant and the camping parking zone, or in the camping parking zone itself.
A indicates the Dolphin restaurant, B to C is the camping area (all the basic maps are provided by Google).
After recognizing the location before the McCanns arrival, the stranger became aware then of the movements of the McCanns and friends, specially their dinners at Tapas Bar, and their routine checks to the children in the apartments.
He elected some vantage points of easy access to watch the Tapas Bar reception entrance, the apartment 5A side gate, and the block 5 parking entrance. There are statements in the PJ Files by people, referred here as LM, AM, DF and LP, who saw this person. In Kate’s book "Madeleine" there is an additional report from JW, who also saw this stranger.
GM described one of these points and the cigarette butts he found there on May 5th. 2007, in a statement included in the PJ Files (see main file pages 3902-3908). These cigarette butts were not collected for analysis.
All the vantage points P1, P2 and P3 are of easy access from the streets. From P1 a person can see the 5A parking entrance, the 5A side gate and the Tapas Bar entrance. P2 has two points of interest: the balcony in the first floor, and the area below the balcony. From the balcony a person can see the 5A side gate and the intersection of Dr. Agostinho da Silva and Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins streets. In addition from below the balcony anyone can also see the Tapas Bar entrance. P3 has many points of interest: the windows in the stairs going up to the first and second floors, and the paths from the stairs to the apartments 5G , 5J, 5K and 5N. From these places a person can see people entering the parking entrance to reach apartments 5A, 5B and 5D, among others. There are also some places to hide waiting to enter in action, in the stairs or below the stairs in P2 and P3, and behind the fence in P2. The main blocks are those numbers 5, 6 and 2 of Ocean Club, but also block 4 from its little stairs which communicate with block 5 car park, or the path between the two blocks. Other blocks of interest are number 1, and "Cristaluz" building .
The stranger also studied the areas around the Ocean Club Tapas Bar and apartments, finding the walking paths (Borges would say "labyrinth") and secluded places to the East and South from the Tapas Bar, that were mostly poorly illuminated at night, and which permits to avoid the streets as much as possible.
5A is the McCanns apartment, TB is the Tapas Bar, and MC is Madeleine's creche. The walking paths are indicated in yellow. Also there is a way going to Ramalhete street, Cemitério street, and a path besides some apartments which goes directly to Escola Primária street.
The white trousers called my attention to the statements of AM and LM (main file, pages 301-303), made after showing to them the e-fit based on DF testimony, which I will consider below.
AM recalled seeing someone similar telephoning from the public phone booth in front of the Dolphin restaurant. LM immediately said she recognized it as corresponding to an individual she saw 3 or 4 times telephoning in the booth and once walking in the street near the restaurant. Asked, she said he was always dressed in white trousers, a little dirty already, and a dark winter coat. He was always on foot and alone when she saw him. Asked further, she said she saw him during the past week, not recalling on which days, but guarantees not having seen him since the date of the abduction of Madeleine.
The number in the phone booth was 282 789 210. In the surrounding area, specifically Rua Helena do Nascimento Batista, another booth was located by the police, it having the number 282 789 111.
That was just in this street where the witness LP saw the same man, near the pharmacy. The police presented to LP a signage and wardrobe figures, and he confirmed that two weeks ago the individual, whom he knows nothing more about, was seen on a few occasions in the Praia da Luz zone.
He states that it was an individual who appeared to be about 35/40 years of age, skinny, around 1.70 meters in height, and wearing dark clothing (jean top and jeans). He had dark, straight hair, rather untidy which trailed down to his neck but could not be considered long. The face is described as having a rustic appearance, dark-skinned and seemingly sun-tanned and he had dark eyes whose exact color he cannot define.
He states that he saw this individual on more than one occasion on the road that gives access to Praia da Luz, and also next to the pharmacy located on Helena do Nascimento Baptista street in Praia da Luz. At each sighting, the referred individual was on foot, alone and did not appear to have a vehicle with him. This was not a person who looked like the people usual inhabitants of Praia da Luz.
I located the two public phones booths and made calls from them to confirm the numbers. In addition, I located another public phone behind the phone with number 282 789 111. I confirmed its number: 282 789 112.
Reading the PJ files I found the calls made from the 282 789 210, from April 30th. 2007 to May 3rd. 2007, but was unable to find any calls for the 282 789 111 and the 282 789 112.
If the suspect was seen in the zone for at least one week before Madeleine abduction, the request to the phone company should have been not only for one public phone calls and not only from April 30th to May 3rd, 2007.
It will be most interesting trying to locate the calls made from the three numbers from April 16th. 2007 to May 3rd. 2007.
LM and her husband AM recognized DF's e-fit as the suspect (main file pages 301-303). But in November 2007, after being showed to them all the e-fits in the files, they did not recognize the suspect (main file pages 3150-3157). It is possibly due to effects on memory of the elapsed time between May and November. And this is why I consider the first LM and AM statements of May to be more accurate than those of November.
Some people think that this suspect was identified by the Polícia Judiciária. This is not true. The PJ only considered the call from the 282 789 210 to 214 684 141 to be suspicious (main file pages 3599a, 4362 and 4363). This call was made by a woman ("a empregada" = "the female employee").
AM recalled seeing someone similar telephoning from the public phone booth in front of the Dolphin restaurant. LM immediately said she recognized it as corresponding to an individual she saw 3 or 4 times telephoning in the booth and once walking in the street near the restaurant. Asked, she said he was always dressed in white trousers, a little dirty already, and a dark winter coat. He was always on foot and alone when she saw him. Asked further, she said she saw him during the past week, not recalling on which days, but guarantees not having seen him since the date of the abduction of Madeleine.
The number in the phone booth was 282 789 210. In the surrounding area, specifically Rua Helena do Nascimento Batista, another booth was located by the police, it having the number 282 789 111.
That was just in this street where the witness LP saw the same man, near the pharmacy. The police presented to LP a signage and wardrobe figures, and he confirmed that two weeks ago the individual, whom he knows nothing more about, was seen on a few occasions in the Praia da Luz zone.
He states that it was an individual who appeared to be about 35/40 years of age, skinny, around 1.70 meters in height, and wearing dark clothing (jean top and jeans). He had dark, straight hair, rather untidy which trailed down to his neck but could not be considered long. The face is described as having a rustic appearance, dark-skinned and seemingly sun-tanned and he had dark eyes whose exact color he cannot define.
He states that he saw this individual on more than one occasion on the road that gives access to Praia da Luz, and also next to the pharmacy located on Helena do Nascimento Baptista street in Praia da Luz. At each sighting, the referred individual was on foot, alone and did not appear to have a vehicle with him. This was not a person who looked like the people usual inhabitants of Praia da Luz.
I located the two public phones booths and made calls from them to confirm the numbers. In addition, I located another public phone behind the phone with number 282 789 111. I confirmed its number: 282 789 112.
Reading the PJ files I found the calls made from the 282 789 210, from April 30th. 2007 to May 3rd. 2007, but was unable to find any calls for the 282 789 111 and the 282 789 112.
If the suspect was seen in the zone for at least one week before Madeleine abduction, the request to the phone company should have been not only for one public phone calls and not only from April 30th to May 3rd, 2007.
It will be most interesting trying to locate the calls made from the three numbers from April 16th. 2007 to May 3rd. 2007.
LM and her husband AM recognized DF's e-fit as the suspect (main file pages 301-303). But in November 2007, after being showed to them all the e-fits in the files, they did not recognize the suspect (main file pages 3150-3157). It is possibly due to effects on memory of the elapsed time between May and November. And this is why I consider the first LM and AM statements of May to be more accurate than those of November.
Some people think that this suspect was identified by the Polícia Judiciária. This is not true. The PJ only considered the call from the 282 789 210 to 214 684 141 to be suspicious (main file pages 3599a, 4362 and 4363). This call was made by a woman ("a empregada" = "the female employee").
I think DF also saw this man watching to the apartment of the McCanns. "It was not possible to identify this guy" as it is written in the PJ files. Even though in the files we can read that there is "very strong chance" that he would be a civil building official, or a gardener, or BGN, a musician who lived in his car in Praia da Luz. But the final report of the Attorney, page 4611 of the PJ files, does not mention that this man has been identified as BGN. What the final report mentioned is that the man was looking to the apartment of the McCanns, near which was parked a white car, which could belong to BGN.
On pages 145 to 153, and 200 to 206, of the PJ files exist more data on the observation of this suspect. DF claims to have interbred with the man. He describes him as appearing between 25 and 35 years of age (BGN was 56 years old at the time). When the witness was shown photographs of BGN, he does not recognize him, and says the guy he saw "appeared to be much younger" (pages 833 and 834 of the main file).
As for the gardener GWJ (main file pages 973 to 975) is not at all clear why it is related to the suspect, and the same can be said of the building construction official.
For all this, the suspect remains unidentified. DF said he was aware that the man's attention was fixed on the area adjacent to the van parked near the McCanns apartment in such a way that the man was unaware of the presence of DF.
DF described the man as caucasian, dark-skinned, medium stature, 1,70 to 1,75m tall, about 25 to 35 years old as I mentioned before, adding that the man had dark and thick hair but with no noticeable fringe at the front.
Another person who I think saw the man was JW. In her book "Madeleine" Kate McCannn mentioned two sightings of the man witnessed by JW , on April 29th. and May 2nd. 2007. This latter incident is the most important because the man showed a suspicious attitude, being in front of the Ocean Club entrance (approximately the same place as DF suspect) and watching to the McCanns apartment, a day before Madeleine's abduction, ie maybe the same day that DF sighting.
The man was 1,78 meters tall, and slim. He wore casual clothes, maybe jeans. According to the witness he was ugly, with "smallpox" prints in his face, and a big nose.
APPENDIX G
Opening the window from the outside
The stranger abductor opens the 5A apartment front window and, without entering the 5A, takes Madeleine, who had walked to the window half asleep.
It is also known that Gerry McCann (Madeleine's father) was not sure if the glass panes were locked.
Focusing in the window, there are at least two procedures to open this type of roller shutters, without damaging them.
One is the normal and usual way, from the inside of the room, when you pull down the cord, extracting it from box A and leaving the cord enters box B, by the spring mechanism inside box B.
The other way is pulling up the shutters from the outside of the room. When you do this, in a great majority of cases, the cord remains loose inside box A, and the spring mechanism inside box B do not act. That is why if you pull up the shutters from the outside, there is no brake mechanism to stop them falling again to their original position (when you open the shutters as usual from the inside, the cord enters box B, and rolled up there, and the brake mechanism of box B mantains the cord there, and therefore the shutters can not fall down).
So how could the abductor open the window from the outside and avoid them falling again, without harming nothing? It is possible, if the glass panes are not locked, following these steps:
1. He lifted the shutters from outside to from half to three quarters of the window height.
2. He then mantained the shutters in this position with his left hand.
3. If the left glass pane (seen from outside) was closed (but not locked), he opened it to the right, with his right hand.
4. Always maintaining the shutters with his left hand, he introduced his right hand to catch the cord and gently opened the shutters as usual, without excesive noise and without damage. While doing this he moved the curtains to the left, and the curtain lace fell to the floor.
All of this from the outside of the apartment.
By now I think Madeleine woke up by the noise. She went to the moving curtains, somewhat somnolent, thinking it could be one of her parents doing something. When she arrived close to the curtains, the abductor introduced his both arms, and took her. He subdued her (there are more than one possibility here) and went away with her. In the road he encountered Jane Tanner.
A time ago Madeleine used to wake up in the night and leave her bed. According to Kate McCann statement of September 6th. 2007 [bolds are mine]:
"However, in England Madeleine sometimes woke up during the night, around 2/2:30 AM and went to her parents. During holidays it was normal for the children to be awake by 7:30/8:00, in England, at home, they would normally wake between 7 and 7:30 AM.
Regarding a British custom of having a behaviour chart for the children, she says that she has several notes about Madeleine because with some regularity she gets up during the night. This situation was reported from April 2006 up to her birthday that same year, when she stopped having this problem. These notes correspond to the stars given on the nights Madeleine did not get up and go to her parents' room. When she had 20 stars she got a present and if she woke up at night and did not stay in her bed, she did not get a star."
A time ago Madeleine used to wake up in the night and leave her bed. According to Kate McCann statement of September 6th. 2007 [bolds are mine]:
"However, in England Madeleine sometimes woke up during the night, around 2/2:30 AM and went to her parents. During holidays it was normal for the children to be awake by 7:30/8:00, in England, at home, they would normally wake between 7 and 7:30 AM.
Regarding a British custom of having a behaviour chart for the children, she says that she has several notes about Madeleine because with some regularity she gets up during the night. This situation was reported from April 2006 up to her birthday that same year, when she stopped having this problem. These notes correspond to the stars given on the nights Madeleine did not get up and go to her parents' room. When she had 20 stars she got a present and if she woke up at night and did not stay in her bed, she did not get a star."
APPENDIX H
Is Madeleine McCann alive?
Is Madeleine McCann dead? Is she alive? Nobody knows (or maybe only her abductor). We have not found evidence neither that she is alive nor that she is dead.
Many people say: "based on statistics there is a high probability that she is dead". This is totally wrong. From statistics which shows a population trend you can not infer the state of a single case.
For example, in a given city you know 12% of all woman are pregnant now. If a single woman of the city comes to see you, and you do not know nothing about her, would you say she has a 12% "probability" of being pregnant? Or that she is 12% pregnant? Of course no. She is 100% pregnant or 100% not pregnant (in the absence of any other evidence).
Statistics which shows a population trend only can be used to predict population trends, not single cases. In our example you can predict that in the following year there will be, more or less, 12% pregnant women in the city, and prepare your maternity and health personnel to give birth to these children. But you can not predict if a particular woman will be pregnant.
The same about Madeleine case: she is now 100% not alive, or she is now 100% alive (in the absence of any evidence). And is worth continue searching for her.
APPENDIX I
The theft
There was a theft 17 days before the abduction of Madeleine in the same block of apartments: "... most recently on 16th April 2007 there was a theft from an apartment in Block 5L, from where a plasma display screen, credit cards and a mobile phone belonging to the respective guests were taken ...".
"... the theft took place at the end of the day and according to the guests the event happened when they had left for dinner after completing check in and having left their suitcases in the apartment [...] the guests having said that they had just left the door on the latch ..." (PJ Files pages 344-345).
The detail is as follows. Was it a coincidence that the theft occurred just after the check in, and in a second floor apartment? If it was no coincidence how the thief got the information? Who had that information?
This theft may be related to the abduction of Madeleine, and if so, to answer those questions is essential.
But it is not all. From the witness statement of Pamela Fenn (PJ Files pages 2412-2415) we can read: "When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event [the Madeleine abduction]. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted theft, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted theft in the residence".
The following pictures show the space and time relations of the three crimes, commited in a 17 days time lapse (click on each pic to enlarge).
The following pictures show the space and time relations of the three crimes, commited in a 17 days time lapse (click on each pic to enlarge).
The man who opened the window and took Madeleine had the intention to abduct her, or only went to steal money or other personal values, and suddenly ran with her?
At least twelve Mark Warner or Ocean Club employees knew about theft in apartments and other housing in Praia da Luz.
They described in the following way (main file of Polícia Judiciária, Vol II pages 239-243, 264-265, 277-278, 353-354, 365-366, 395-396; Vol III pages 697-699, 760-761, 780 (2); Vol VII pages 1838-1840):
"... there were much frequent theft in the inner part of apartments, the deponent does not know neither the way they were carried out nor the identity of the authors."
"... sometimes theft happen at housing in the resort zone, in particular in summer, inclusive at apartments that belong to the [Ocean] Club. By his knowdledge these theft happened by neglect or by the break of doors or windows."
"When asked he said that theft in the inner part of apartments are frequent, mainly by break in, but some happened by clients neglect who left the doors open."
"... the zone of the resort is a quiet one, having the deponent knowledge of the existance of small theft."
"About other strange situations that could be happened in the location, by example theft in the inner part of the apartements, the deponent says that some had happened, but now he does not remember any recent situation".
"... for the years she serves she has knowledge that some theft had happened in the inner part of the apartments due to the fact that the guests left the doors open [...] she does not remember to have been told if these theft included broken doors or windows."
"... the deponent says that in the winter time she heard about one or another theft case, but she has not knowledge of the details of these situations."
"... last year, 2006, she had knowledge that some assaults to residences had happened".
"... some theft in apartments and housing, in fact, had occurred, but she does not know of situations with violence."
"... he has not knowledge of any anomalous situation which involved guests of the Ocean Club or the location, except for some damage and small theft."
We can not rule out a connection between these thefts and the abduction of Madeleine.
At least twelve Mark Warner or Ocean Club employees knew about theft in apartments and other housing in Praia da Luz.
They described in the following way (main file of Polícia Judiciária, Vol II pages 239-243, 264-265, 277-278, 353-354, 365-366, 395-396; Vol III pages 697-699, 760-761, 780 (2); Vol VII pages 1838-1840):
"... there were much frequent theft in the inner part of apartments, the deponent does not know neither the way they were carried out nor the identity of the authors."
"... sometimes theft happen at housing in the resort zone, in particular in summer, inclusive at apartments that belong to the [Ocean] Club. By his knowdledge these theft happened by neglect or by the break of doors or windows."
"When asked he said that theft in the inner part of apartments are frequent, mainly by break in, but some happened by clients neglect who left the doors open."
"... the zone of the resort is a quiet one, having the deponent knowledge of the existance of small theft."
"About other strange situations that could be happened in the location, by example theft in the inner part of the apartements, the deponent says that some had happened, but now he does not remember any recent situation".
"... for the years she serves she has knowledge that some theft had happened in the inner part of the apartments due to the fact that the guests left the doors open [...] she does not remember to have been told if these theft included broken doors or windows."
"... the deponent says that in the winter time she heard about one or another theft case, but she has not knowledge of the details of these situations."
"... last year, 2006, she had knowledge that some assaults to residences had happened".
"... some theft in apartments and housing, in fact, had occurred, but she does not know of situations with violence."
"... he has not knowledge of any anomalous situation which involved guests of the Ocean Club or the location, except for some damage and small theft."
We can not rule out a connection between these thefts and the abduction of Madeleine.
APPENDIX J
Eyewitness Testimony System Anaysis
Some people asked me why I think the Madeleine McCann crime was an abduction by a stranger to Madeleine parents and their seven adult holiday friends. The first thing I did was a system analysis of all the eyewitness statements made about what happened May 3rd. 2007, between 20:50 and 22:10.
Eyewitness Testimony System Anaysis
Some people asked me why I think the Madeleine McCann crime was an abduction by a stranger to Madeleine parents and their seven adult holiday friends. The first thing I did was a system analysis of all the eyewitness statements made about what happened May 3rd. 2007, between 20:50 and 22:10.
It is normal to find inaccuracies in a isolated witness statement. But in a system analysis you obtain a global insight of all the situation, adjusting normal discrepancies between statements, or between statements and the given physical and psychosocial conditions.
Each testimony or statement is a component of the system, and there exists the physical and psychosocial environment too, and you have to consider the interactions between the statements, and of the statements with the environment, to gain insight, to discover the mechanism of what have really happened.
That is why I went to Praia da Luz 3 times, a total of 26 days, not to interview witnesses, but mainly to gain insight of the physical and psychosocial aspects of the environment. I knew that in a system analysis of this type a lot of minor discrepancies emerge. Even I knew that, given the quantity of witnesses involved, I would find a few major discrepancies. It is absolutely normal.
Of course before beginning my analysis I put all previous hypothesis on the table:
- Madeleine woke up and left the apartment on their own, and got lost.
- Madeleine died by accident, and her parents hid her corpse, and simulated an abduction.
- Madeleine was abducted by a stranger to Madeleine parents and their seven adult holiday friends.
After the analysis I only found two major discrepancies. The first: "When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle [...] A few minutes later, when it was around 21:20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared." (PJ files pages 471 to 473). But almost all the testimonies indicate the alarm of the abduction was raised at approximately 22:00. The second: The well-known one of Jane passing very near to Gerry and Jes at 21:15, with neither Gerry nor Jes remember have seen her.
But these are two normal discrepancies in these cases, though major ones. I was interested in the global situation, which I can adjust from all the testimonies. The major discrepancies, if in a normal quantity, can be discarded, and the minor ones, if in a normal quantity, can be adjusted. This was which I did.
You can take an isolated single major discrepancy, even a minor one, and make a world of it, a total conspiracy. That is why you have to study the complete system. So I took the global picture, and I was only able to explain it admitting the hypothesys of an abductor who was an stranger to the McCann and their seven adult holiday friends. I had to discard the other two hypothesis.
APPENDIX K
The case mut be reopen
The case is very complicated for the kind of place the same occurred. A very quite location which only had minor crimes before and after the Madeleine abduction. There were locals living there, mainly Portuguese and English ones. There were a lot of people which went to work there at the hotels and apartments, many from Lagos, but other were persons who went there to work not long ago, mainly from East Europe. And the tourists, of course, many from England and the rest of Europe, mainly staying at the hotels and apartments, but a few living in camping cars.
As Andy Redwood said, there are many "investigative opportunities" which would lead to "new evidence" (195 or more now), which may allow the case to be reopen. But if the case is not reopened now, the "new evidence" will not appear. It is needed that the "investigative opportunities" be treated like "new evidence", so to establish a virtuose circle, with investigative opportunities leading to new evidence leading to new investigative opportunities ...
I will mention, as an example, some of these investigative opportunities.
1. A man was very close to Madeleine from Monday to Thursday, the abdcution day. On Thursday he was alone at Praia da Luz streets approximately by the time of the abduction. He made a statement to the police saying he was single at the time, but he would be living with a woman. No further action were taken with him. His girlfriend did not make any statement to the police. No mention why he was discarded.
2. Another couple was very near Madeleine's apartment minutes after the abduction, and maybe before Madeleine's mother raised the alarm. The woman did a statement to the police. Neither the man was asked by the police nor another woman who was with them minutes earlier. No mention why they were discarded.
3. A group of men who were doing repairments in a house 4 minutes walking from Madeleine's apartment in the afternoon the day of the abduction, must be located and investigated. No mention why this lead was not followed.
4. A man, who may know fairly well block 5 because he had to go there for his work, left his house at 21:30 on May 3rd. 2007 to bring home a relative. He returned with his relative, but the time of return is not specified in the PJ files, and neither his wife nor his relative were asked about.
5. A tourist from East Europe was considered suspect. He was not asked about where he was on May 3rd. 2007 between 20:00 and 24:00, although he was living very near Luz.
6. A man, who had knowledge by April 29th. or 30th. that some of the McCann group members were checking the children, gave an statement to the police. But he did not talk about his activities on May 3rd.
7. There are several Ocean Club employees who for their work were very close to Madeleine. Many of them were not asked where they were on May 3rd. 2007 from 20:00 to 24:00. For those who were asked, in many cases there were not further action taken to verify their statements. Since March 2007 to the date of the abduction of Madeleine more than 50 new Ocean Club employees began to work there.
These are only some examples. I think the case needs to be reopen and will be reopen in the future. And the sooner the better.
APPENDIX L
The rubbish bins, the manholes and the sea
I am considering now the pessimist scenario of a predator killing Madeleine and throwing away her body. Where would the body be disposed?
The rubbish bins, the manholes and the sea
I am considering now the pessimist scenario of a predator killing Madeleine and throwing away her body. Where would the body be disposed?
THE RUBBISH BINS
Kate McCann, Madeleine's mother, wrote in her book Madeleine: "As soon as it was light [Friday May 4th.] Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we'd never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, 'Please God, don't let her be in here'. The most striking and horrific thing was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine".
Of course they could not be able to search in the 188 Praia da Luz bins.
I took some photos of some the bins.
In the Final Report the Polícia Judiciária wrote (page 4570): "All the garbage bins that exist in the Vila da Luz and surroundings, in a total number of 188 (one hundred and eighty eight), were searched and inspected, yet nothing relevant was found, page 3183".
But when were these bins searched?
In the page 3183 of the main files they wrote: "I hereby bring to your notice, that on this date [Monday May 7th.], I the undersigned, together with Inspector L.P. as well as three employees from the Lagos Municipal Chamber, responsible for rubbish collection from Praia da Luz, went to this locality and carried out a detailed check of all the rubbish containers in the area, including the underground containers, as well as in surrounding areas, a total of 188 containers were checked, nothing was found of interest to the NUIPC 201.07 OGALGS investigation".
The search was more than 3 days after Madeleine abduction!
Maybe the following helps to understand: from "Searching for Madeleine: A Dispatches Special", emitted on 18th October 2007, 9pm on Channel 4, I extract the following statements:
Juliet Stevenson (narrator): Back in town, our team discover another intriguing hiding place. They spot large industrial bins all over the resort.
David Barclay (former head of physical evidence UK National Crime and Operations Faculty): (to camera) There have been cases in the UK where bodies have been disposed of in wheelie bins ...
Charlotte Pennington (Mark Warner nanny): We were told to search everywhere, including the bins and in Praia da Luz they're quite big and scary-looking. Although I saw police searching, I personally didn't see police looking in the bins like we did. But I don't think we looked in every bin.
Gary Ligg (former senior search adviser, West Yorkshire Police): There's a world of difference to looking in a refuse bin and tipping it on its side, emptying it all out, looking in every bag and re-filling it. When you've done that then you can say: there's no pyjamas, there's no body in there.
Juliet Stevenson: Dispatches has learnt that the bins are emptied nightly between midnight and 4am. And even though a major search for a missing child was going on, they were still emptied on the night Madeleine disappeared. Since the collections were not stopped, there's another area Gary Ligg knows needs prompt attention but it's thirty kilometres away.
Gary Ligg: We need to find out where the land-fill site is; talk to the authorities, find out where it went and try to identify which area of the land fill these particular bins were emptied.
Chris Stevenson (former detective chief superintendent, Cambridgeshire Police): (to camera) Ideally you would secure all of the bins in the immediate area and make sure that the local authority don't dispose of any of the contents until the search team have had the opportunity to check them all.
Juliet Stevenson: We asked the Portuguese police whether the bins and local landfill had been searched. They chose not to comment. [...] The large sewers and industrial bins are still Gary Ligg' main worry.
Gary Ligg: It's not clear if the bins were searched to a degree where you could be confident that she wasn't in one. And if they were removed, there's been no suggestion of a follow-up to find out where they are and to search the landfill there.
THE MANHOLES
I saw manholes in all Praia da Luz streets, and even in the small isolated hill to the West. I took photos of many of them, including the inside of two, where you can see that the connecting pipes are too small in diameter for a toddler body. And it is not impossible but not easy to open it without proper tools, as the ones used by the maintenance personnel. Were all these manholes properly searched?
THE SEA
And of course, another easy way of disposing a body is throwing it to the sea. I took several photographs from the shore of Praia da Luz, but here I put those to the West of the place, the zone the man with a child in arms that the Smith familiy saw, were heading. The shore is of easy access, but it requires some previous knowledge of the zone when at night.
WHERE WAS THE ABDUCTOR GOING TO?
If we draw a vector, with origin in the sighting of Jane Tanner, and end in the Smith family sightings, we may infer, though not with absolute certainty, where the abductor was going to. What is in that area? A small house almost deserted, some apartments, a makeshift campsite for camping vehicles, the southeastern part of the small hill, many manholes, some rubbish bins, the Mata Porcas plant for treating wastewater, the sea.
The abductor may have had a vehicle in that area to get out of Praia da Luz with Madeleine. There could be others, or not, in the vehicle. Maybe he just gave her to someone else.
Thinking negative, and if the abduction was not planned, but it was a burglar who suddenly ran with Madeleine (or was planned, and the intention was molesting her) he could have murdered her and thrown her body into the sea or in one of the rubbish bins, or have hidden her body in that area.
